Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's probably going to come sometime after the tax cut, a massive roll-back of regulations, the appointment of conservative judges, recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a withdrawal from the Paris Climate agreement, a travel ban from certain extremist countries, pulling out of Trans-Pac agreement, and a roll-back of Cuban policies....
Right after all those things are finished. Which they are.
(Cute how you referenced "buying Denmark". You are the only person in America who even bothers to pretend that was intended.)
Wasn't it Greenland he wanted to buy? Nobody wants Denmark obviously
Tel-Aviv is still the capital of Israhell last I checked, regardless of where the US decides to put it's embassy.
The difference is that Wong Kim Ark's parents were here legally when he was born.
Doesn't matter. Plyer vs. Doe (1982) has reaffirmed that native born citizens are entitled to US citizenship regardless of the status of their parents.
Doesn't matter. Plyer vs. Doe (1982) has reaffirmed that native born citizens are entitled to US citizenship regardless of the status of their parents.
That's not what that decision was about. It was about equal protection clause, not citizenship clause. It was a BS decision that illegal aliens get public education but it did not address citizenship.
Nah. United States vs. Wong Kim Ark establishes birthright citizenship as the law of the land.
WKA never mentioned illegal aliens. SCOTUS ruled only that those born to domiciled (legal) US residents were birthright citizens. Illegal aliens aren't domiciled (legal) residents. Their legal domicile is the country from which they illegally emigrated.
The 14th amendment might sound good on its face to some but it's one of the dumbest and most misinterpreted of all. Why it wasn't amended by 1924 is an oversight. Now it will never get amended.
Interesting comment. I'm assuming you're referring to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924?
That's another example of why we know the 14th Amendment didn't automatically convey birthright citizenship on those who are born in the US to a parent(s) who are citizens/subjects of foreign sovereigns.
Read current US Nationality Law, specifically subsections (a) and (b). If everyone born in the US were actually automatically US citizens, subsection (b) would be redundant and would be neither included nor necessary:
Yep another fantasy idea from our authoritarian king. Tomorrow it'll be "no soup for you" and the next day it'll be "bread line for you"...and the beat goes on.
The Supreme Court has already had rulings on the subject... https://qz.com/1447349/an-1898-us-su...t-citizenship/
“The right of citizenship… is incident to birth in the country… The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
Supreme Court set clear precedent on birthright citizenship.
Birthright citizenship has a long history in the United States, upheld by Supreme Court rulings. 10/31/2018 https://thehill.com/opinion/immigrat...ht-citizenship
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
